| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you doing some tidying, I thought it would be helpful to list some of the major things that aren't clear in the rules.
I don't like having to look up 3 different rules sections and the glossary to understand the rules. Long lists with multiple conjunctions and commas might save page count but it confuses people.
The damage rules. Please be clear about what and instance of damage is. Consider a critical strike from a flaming sword. There is slashing damage, additional fire damage, and persistent fire damage. How does that interact with a Champions reaction that does resist all? Is it one two or three instances? Is a shield block with item hardness different? There are similar concerns with multiple weaknesses.
Battle Forms and wild shape. Please reword it all. Many peope are confused about how to calculate the Druids unarmed attack modifier. There were long arguments about whether or not item bonus was included. Can the Druid choose to use Dexterity or Strength? How does Additional Damage interact with the Battle Forms damage numbers. Many people do mistakenly add the wild shape +2 status bonus to attack all the time.
You recently created the Shapespeak mask to allow a wild shaped Animal to speak. But it misses the fact that other Battle forms like Avatars, Righteous Might, and Dragons aren't animals and traditionally do speak. This is very similar to the problem with all the familiar rules being written for animals - but we have rock, plant and undead familiars now.
Minions. You clarified quickened and slowed recently but there are a stack of conditions that are affected by the start and the end of the turn. Can you be clear about how these are resolved. I just let the player choose and do that in the minions controllers turn.
10th level spells. Can you delete the rule please its confusing and is not important. Or tell me what a 19th level Cleric has for a Divine Font: none, 9th rank, 10th rank? Because I think the rules say none and that doesn't seem fair. Loving your nomenclature change already.
Divine source and Deity rules make sense as is for Clerics and Champions, but not for the classes that don't have to worship the source of their magic ie Oracles, Divine Sorcerers or Divine Witches. While you are redoing alignment mechanics can you make it clear what applies if an Oracle who worships a holy deity but gets their magic from an unholy deity.
Recall Knowledge. Please make it clear how to handle Unique creatures and just reword it so half the community doesn't write off the ability as useless.
Hostile actions. Is not clear as the term Indirect is open ended. Please can we be sure how Sanctuary, Charm, and Calm Emotions work.
Traits: So many of these are not cleanly overwritten and they should be. Please fix up.
a) Poppets and the Construct trait. I don't want to see Poppets claiming they have immunity to bleed, or immunity to unconsciousness
b) Undead trait and Healing. It is just quite clear the whole positive and negative healing, but the Undead trait still has blanket immunity to healing. Seems like a clash. Please ensure that the Negative Healing rules have priority
c) Incorporeal mentions immunity to strength checks 4 times. Note that swinging an axe is a strength check. That was Ok till players got Incorporeal options.
Eidolons re-manifesting and persistent conditions?
I have more collected here but above are the major things.
Based on the books they're from and the list of what's included, eidolons and poppets aren't going to be covered.
Everything else seems reasonable enough to clear up, or at least give clarifying examples for.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Witch and Wizard both being in Player Core - how long minions (especially familiars) can follow commands for when not in combat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE rework your text descriptions of game mechanics: The first paragraph should be the description of the mechanic. The “fluff” if you will. The second paragraph should be the actual mechanics of how it works within the PF2R framework. The “crunch” if you will. The third paragraph should be any examples needed to help understand the mechanic, its intent, its interaction with other mechanics, etc.
Codify across the board the “Splash” trait. Example: The text in the CRB doesn’t include spells, and the spell “Acid Splash” doesn’t include the “Splash” trait.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My top 3 are Recall Knowledge [all of it], Minions [out of encounters] and attacking objects.
I'd like summons improved myself as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like summons improved myself as well.
That is more of a rebalance. I have an extensive wish list and a list of things that just don't work as they should and many people have posted on that previously. But I don't expect they will have the space for more changes than they have announced. I'll probably still ask in another thread anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they are going to do this to break from the OGL, they might as well go all the way and fix just about everything. Shouldn't be nearly as hard as preparing for initial release.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cough* The Control Water spell is woefully imprecise on how it works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is being stunned on your turn is still up in the air? There was recent errata that touched on stunned in general, but I don't remember if it actually addressed that specific timing.
The big 2 for me are already mentioned. Recall Knowledge. Negative healing/undead trait rules, specifically the undead trait entailing immunity to healing effects. I do believe that's the final loose end of those rules and removing it cleans everything else up.
Additionally, I think the removal of the word "mitigate" to convey what you can and can't do to circumvent Oracle curses would go a long way. I think every other word used (reduce, remove, negate, and ignore) is comprehensive and clear enough, and mitigate just muddies this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll tack on mind in case they take a look:
1. Fix hardness so it is consistent with the damage rules and resistance and weakness rules.
Fully understand that Shield Block should make sense. People stack a lot of runes on their weapons as they level or use abilities like Bespell Weapon, if a shield's hardness or shield block doesn't block cold damage from a run on a weapon or the damage should be totaled, then make this consistent with other rules for applying damage.
This also makes clear for objects and anything that uses Hardness like walls, animated objects, traps, hazards, and what not. Given the amount of traps in games with hardness and players and enemies using walls and such, Hardness needs way more detail and explanation to make this easier to run in a variety of situations.
2. Battle Forms. These need to make more sense. Not being able to talk in a form that talks is very inconsistent and outright against the fantasy of battle forms. If you turn into a dragon and a dragon can talk, so can you.
I can understand not wanting to handout casting while using battleform mobility, but speaking?
And skill abilities like trip and grab should be useable and it should be clear.
And I agree with wanting the clarification for druids for item bonuses and extra damage in battle forms. I think they should get it, but it should be clear. Battle forms should be viable if invested in.
3. Summons. Not sure what to do here, but a summon should be viable in combat against a CR+2 enemy if using a max level spell slot with a reasonable chance to hit and do damage. A summon should feel way better than it does across the levels. Using a level 10 spell slot for a CR 15 creature fighting against CR 18 to 22 plus creatures isn't working well.
Close the gap some or figure out another way to do their attack rolls that doesn't feel terrible even if you have to write up template creatures like battle forms. Template creatures would probably be easier anyway than having to search the Bestiaries anyway.
4. Special materials and ammunition: Please clear up if you need to make high grade ammunition to fire out of a +3 major striking bow. I can't see why low grade cold iron arrows wouldn't work, but if the argument is a melee weapon user has to buy a high grade weapon to put high potency runes on it but a ranged user can buy low grade ammunition and use it which seems unfair.
At the same time I can't see why a low grade cold iron arrow wouldn't be able to be fired for any bow. It's an arrow. What is preventing this?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Straighten out Attacks vs attacks.
attack: a hostile action that you use against an enemy.
Attack: an action with the Attack trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Checks today's date and the publication date.)
You'll get nothing and not like it.
(Checks today's date and the publication date.)
You'll get nothing and not like it.
This, hate to say it... but we know their lead time from staff comments in the past.
If the book isn't already finished, it will be in the final stages.
I will probably avoid buying the physical player core book 1 until the second printing, it will have the biggest errors.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, hate to say it... but we know their lead time from staff comments in the past.(Checks today's date and the publication date.)
You'll get nothing and not like it.
Probably true. But an errata wishlisht isn't a terrible idea regardless.
If nothing else, there is still the 2/year errata cycle to try and get in on.
And best case it will be a morale boost to the developers if they read through this and see that everything that we are wanting fixed is already heading to the printer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The damage rules. Please be clear about what and instance of damage is.
Please don't bring it here. we have other threads for that and you have made your points there. That we disagree is the reason it needs to be clearer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're speaking about battle form, I'm all for a "clean up" of wildshape in general. The spell should make it clear that you aren't forced to heighten the form you chose to the max level (otherwise, it mean that once you level up too much, you can turn into a 5 meter tall dog, but not turn into a normal sized dog anymore). Also, I think that the "insect form" feat should disapear and become part of the normal spell, the insect form shape are similar in power to the animal form ones, so it's strictly a flavor tax for no increase in power. Adding a 3rd level heigtenning that say "You can also wild shape into the forms listed in insect form" wouldn't increase the power of the spell, just make more flavor available.
I also am not a fan of the fact that you are forced to keep taking "wild shape specific" feat if you want the spell to actually scale for the whole level range (while other focus spells scale naturally), and I would like it if they did the same for the dino shape and even maybe monstruosity shape. Making it so you unlock those shape automatically would mean that the focus spell have access to a level relevant "ground beatstick" for the whole range, and the "shape unlocking feat" can be those that bring something more than simply bigger stats (like soaring shape allowing you to fly, or elemental shape giving you access to elemental damage/protection). I don't except paizo to go so far tho, I would like it but I'd be fine if the only form they lump into the base spell is insect shape.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rework the war priest, please.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another good thing to be addressed is to make size increase of battle forms and companions as optional not as mandatory as currently is.
Also it would interesting if DaS as turned as an optional roll to any target no more forcing you to attack a different target to abandon the bad roll.
I already said this in blog comments but I would like to see Vancian casting being removed too. May appear too much work but is basically turns the flexible spellcasting as default (Vancian casting could be turned as alternative rule or class archetype giving other benefits for those who want to use it).
Also may increase the number of spellslot by 50% to help in high number of encounters adventures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rework the war priest, please.
I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.
Rework the war priest, please.I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.
I think that the witch is already being reworked in the 1st Player Core book.
I think that the witch is already being reworked in the 1st Player Core book.Rework the war priest, please.I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.
Alchemist as well in PC2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another good thing to be addressed is to make size increase of battle forms and companions as optional not as mandatory as currently is.
Also it would interesting if DaS as turned as an optional roll to any target no more forcing you to attack a different target to abandon the bad roll.
I already said this in blog comments but I would like to see Vancian casting being removed too. May appear too much work but is basically turns the flexible spellcasting as default (Vancian casting could be turned as alternative rule or class archetype giving other benefits for those who want to use it).
Also may increase the number of spellslot by 50% to help in high number of encounters adventures.
Moving PF2s casting system to work more like D&D's 5e seems incredibly improbably to me at this point. Especially when having the spontaneous and prepared casters gives 2 very different ways of using spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few places where I would like to see some minor changes.
I completely agree with the opening poster around defining an instance of damage. Not only does it affect the examples provided but it has quite a profound effect on the Thaumaturge depending upon how it is defined.
Lore skills. I'm okay with the basic concept but think there does need some extra clarity especially on things like unique monsters (I think I know how to handle it but a bit more clarity would not go amiss). My other problem with Lore skills is that they become increasingly problematic at higher levels. Putting improvements into a lore skill is rarely effective as other skills are usually better. It would be nice to make them all auto improve in the same way as they do if taken from the feat.
Definition of succeeding in a roll. This came out when people were looking at the Swashbuckler. Some of the Panache generators required you to succeed at a check, however the question of whether you can succeed at a check against something that is immune. If you follow the stages in the rule book success is achieved during the roll, with later steps taking into account things like immunity. However it does feel against the natural use of the language.
I would like some consistency with weapon proficiency feats. Some allow you to increase in line with your weapon proficiencies available from your class others don't. Then there is some of the odd ones which aren't clear like Unconventional Weaponry.
Maybe making custom magical staff creation not as tedious>?
The damage rules. Please be clear about what and instance of damage is. Consider a critical strike from a flaming sword. There is slashing damage, additional fire damage, and persistent fire damage. How does that interact with a Champions reaction that does resist all? Is it one two or three instances? Is a shield block with item hardness different? There are similar concerns with multiple weaknesses.As for as Hardness go Devs were clear in rules clarifications:
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
So from Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing):
"Pages 266 (Clarification): Can I use Shield Block if I take physical damage that didn't come from an attack?
Shield Block can only be used against physical damage from attacks, since non-attack effects can't trigger the Shield Block. For instance, if you walk over a square of hazardous terrain that deals piercing damage to you, having your shield raised doesn't help you, nor does it help if you need to make a Reflex save against a spell that deals bludgeoning damage. Some abilities let you use Shield Block with other triggers, as seen in the shield spell and the fighter's Reflexive Shield feat, but these exceptions are noted. Also note the 4th printing errata to spellguard shield (page 588) allows it to apply in this way."
As far as Champion Reaction the presistant damage: you don't Resist presistant damage as you don't receive persistent damage the moment attack with it hits you. As per Persistent Damage condition in Rulebook: "Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time" . Chamption reaction says you receive resistance only "against the triggering damage". Persistant Damage is not triggering damage as ally doesn't receive it when he gets hit, only at the end of his turn.
So Champion Reaction works on your example of "critical strike from a...
It's not clear. You are extrapolating a post once again into meaning far more than it does. Not sure why you do this, but it's wrong.
And you are inserting Hardness in the damage list when it isn't there. You are putting where you want to put it. It should be listed. It isn't quite clear save in your mind. The rules text is far from clear.
Certain creatures use Hardness, not just shield users. Are you saying Hardness only works for physical attacks with attack roll for objects as well like animated objects? Walls? Hazards? Doors? Weapons and armor?
It's not clear at all and should be cleared up for everything that uses hardness.
I could have sworn there is another dev post stating persistent damage caused by the attack that a Champion reaction prevents is reduced by the champion's reaction as this very discussion on persistent damage came up. It made it a bit annoying because it had to be tracked separately from other instances of persistent damage.
Rework the war priest, please.
This would be nice too. They are pretty terrible at fulfilling the fantasy archetype.
Please don't bring it here. we have other threads for that and you have made your points there. That we disagree is the reason it needs to be clearer.The damage rules. Please be clear about what and instance of damage is.
This guy thinks hardness only applies to Shield Block. He completely ignores Hardness on objects, animated object creatures, traps, hazards, and weapons and armor.
Can you imagine how useless Hardness would be against Corrosive Runes if it only worked on physical attacks? Even plate armor would get wrecked by Corrosive Runes which already rip apart any non-metal armor and especially clothing with armor runes on it.
Hardness not being explained or tied to the resistant-weakness rules while having things like Corrosive Runes and creatures that affect items and having to deal with walls and such is not great rule writing.
I imagine Kyle the Builder will let someone damage a wall of force with their energy runes since a wall of force according to his reading of hardness doesn't affect energy damage. So a fireball goes right through a wall of force or a wall of stone because the wall's hardness doesn't affect energy damage. I guess casters will be real happy their cantrips are better at destroying wall of force or wall spells than weapons since in Kyle's reading hardness doesn't have any affect on stopping energy damage.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make Unconventional Weaponry more free. Instead of restrict it to only uncommon weapons and from another ancestry or culture allows to take any base weapon instead.
It's very awkward that you can take a Three Peaked Tree but is unable to take a long bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as opposed to you I actually try my best to do research, provide quotes from rules, go through rules, feats description, FAQ and try to find some common points and use logic to connect A + B + C and get some conclusions that are (even if not 100% clear) way closer to something logical than your "No, becasue I don't think so" and "I think it should work like that". I don't really care how Hardness should/shouldn't be, only what rules say. I am not against better/worse Hardness, I only want to know what RAW or developers RAI...Please don't bring it here. we have other threads for that and you have made your points there. That we disagree is the reason it needs to be clearer.The damage rules. Please be clear about what and instance of damage is.This guy thinks hardness only applies to Shield Block. He completely ignores Hardness on objects, animated object creatures, traps, hazards, and weapons and armor.
Can you imagine how useless Hardness would be against Corrosive Runes if it only worked on physical attacks? Even plate armor would get wrecked by Corrosive Runes which already rip apart any non-metal armor and especially clothing with armor runes on it.
Hardness not being explained or tied to the resistant-weakness rules while having things like Corrosive Runes and creatures that affect items and having to deal with walls and such is not great rule writing.
I imagine Kyle the Builder will let someone damage a wall of force with their energy runes since a wall of force according to his reading of hardness doesn't affect energy damage. So a fireball goes right through a wall of force or a wall of stone because the wall's hardness doesn't affect energy damage. I guess casters will be real happy their cantrips are better at destroying wall of force or wall spells than weapons since in Kyle's reading hardness doesn't have any affect on stopping energy damage.
When you've already read and dealt with something extensively seeing all the problems with it, you don't feel like trying to find every rule because PF2 has a multitude of contradictory rules all over the place. So you end up going in circles because how badly the Paizo designers wrote some of the rules.
I could see Hardness was a bad rule from very early on. It wasn't just shield block, but object and hardness rules period for a variety of situations that came up over time.
1. Contradictory rules for targeting objects.
2. Corrosive rune damaging armor on a critical hit and not being sure if Hardness worked against energy.
3. Unclear rules on Shield block and how Hardness interacted with weapon runes on weapons when damage is determined by type.
4. Animated Objects using hardness as damage resistance. Aggregate damage or each instance?
5. Walls using Hardness as their resistance.
6. Very ambiguously written Hardness rules with no guidance on different types of objects. Why would you be able to bludgeon a rope? Cutting should be much easier against a rope than piercing. Fire should probably work better against a wooden door than a steel door. Things like this.
7. Then you listed the damage flow chart which clearly doesn't include Hardness and should.
I've had this debate before. So has Gortle and a bunch of posters on here. So it gets tiresome to pull out the arguments you've already had on this subject to try to prove to a new person that Hardness is a badly written, ambiguous rule that needs more work.
All the stuff Gortle listed above and myself and others have listed are things we've debated on this forum often. They are some rules that need fixing or classes that need rebalancing or things that could use some work to make them consistent, fit the class fantasy, and such.
Since Paizo is doing this remastered thing, might as well try to get a few included. Every fix helps make GMing easier and more fun for all involved.
I know Psychics aren't part of any of this but with the rework on refocusing, I wonder if their odd refocus trick will inadvertently be addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had this debate before. So has Gortle and a bunch of posters on here.
Yes, yes we have... Pretty much since the game started in fact.
Rework the war priest, please.I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.
The Swashbuckler one is very likely IMO, just because what it needs is not a redesign, but just bigger numbers (and maybe a skill auto scaling or two). Even if they have not mentioned with the other big changes, I still expect something there, forums have been very vocal about the class from quite some time now.
The Swashbuckler one is very likely IMO, just because what it needs is not a redesign, but just bigger numbers (and maybe a skill auto scaling or two). Even if they have not mentioned with the other big changes, I still expect something there, forums have been very vocal about the class from quite some time now.Rework the war priest, please.I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.
Swashbuckler with greater numbers maybe a solution but it also maybe a bit lazy.
During other topics discussing this one thing that was notice is that the class not only requires extra actions to adquire extra damage like currently happens to Investigator and sometimes to rogues but many times also requires to pass into some limited tests that also requires MAD (Cha) or risky tests like Tumble Through to able to do this.
Having a greater dmg numbers may be a way to compensate but IMO the correct is to remake the ways you gain panache and how some finishers work (the limitation of finishers to not allow extra attack in that turn and the fact that many swashbuclkers already used their action non-attack action to receive the panache (like Demoralize) makes especially the mostly newer and unprepared players end without know what to do with their 3-action).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe making custom magical staff creation not as tedious>?
I wish they would look at the trait requirement on that again, or, failing that, apply more flavour traits to spells.
I would have loved to build a "Gravity" themed staff, with spells like Gravity well, levitate, Gravitational Pull and the like on it. But sadly they don't have suitable traits to make it work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Swashbuckler one is very likely IMO, just because what it needs is not a redesign, but just bigger numbers (and maybe a skill auto scaling or two). Even if they have not mentioned with the other big changes, I still expect something there, forums have been very vocal about the class from quite some time now.Rework the war priest, please.I second this for Clerics, as well as a boost/revision to Swashbuckler, Alchemist, Investigator, and Witch.Swashbuckler with greater numbers maybe a solution but it also maybe a bit lazy.
During other topics discussing this one thing that was notice is that the class not only requires extra actions to adquire extra damage like currently happens to Investigator and sometimes to rogues but many times also requires to pass into some limited tests that also requires MAD (Cha) or risky tests like Tumble Through to able to do this.
Having a greater dmg numbers may be a way to compensate but IMO the correct is to remake the ways you gain panache and how some finishers work (the limitation of finishers to not allow extra attack in that turn and the fact that many swashbuclkers already used their action non-attack action to receive the panache (like Demoralize) makes especially the mostly newer and unprepared players end without know what to do with their 3-action).
I'd say most people like Swashbuckler conceptually, generally speaking dissatisfaction with the class comes from its low damage and low success rate on Panache actions. Both can be fixed with bigger numbers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a perfect opportunity to fix advanced weapon proficiency scaling for non-humans and non-Fighters, seconded!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know Psychics aren't part of any of this but with the rework on refocusing, I wonder if their odd refocus trick will inadvertently be addressed.
It will probably be minor impact that isn't worth listing along side the classes that are getting some more significant changes.
The changes to refocus will probably only indirectly affect the Psychic. The rules text of Psychic Refocus may not change at all.
It will probably be minor impact that isn't worth listing along side the classes that are getting some more significant changes.
The changes to refocus will probably only indirectly affect the Psychic. The rules text of Psychic Refocus may not change at all.
Agreed. It all falls on what easier refocus actually means and results in. I could see it clue in more on the psychic refocus trick being intended or not, even if the psychic texts remain unchanged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we ask for AON tweaks, or is that too tangential? It'd be really nice for AON to add a "disambiguation" page when multiple pages share the same title, and to fix the "see page #" references into links.